Wednesday, July 22, 2020

No Moral Imagination


Our political leaders keep saying that we're getting back to normal. But, George Monbiot writes, we don't want to go there:

Of course, we would all like to leave the pandemic behind, with its devastating impacts on physical and mental health, its exacerbation of loneliness, the lack of schooling and the collapse in employment. But this doesn’t mean that we want to return to the bizarre and frightening world the government defines as normal. Ours was no land of lost content, but a place in which lethal crises were gathering long before the pandemic struck. Alongside our many political and economic dysfunctions, normality meant accelerating the strangest and deepest predicament humankind has ever confronted: the collapse of our life-support systems.

The evidence of that dysfunction is everywhere:

Last month, confined to our homes, we watched columns of smoke rising from the Arctic, where temperatures reached a highly abnormal 38C. Such apocalyptic imagery is becoming the backdrop to our lives. We scroll past images of fire consuming Australia, California, Brazil, Indonesia, inadvertently normalising them. In a brilliant essay at the beginning of this year, the author Mark O’Connell described this process as “the slow atrophying of our moral imaginations”. We are acclimatising ourselves to our existential crisis.
This month we learned that $10bn-worth of precious metals, such as gold and platinum, are dumped in landfill every year, embedded in tens of millions of tonnes of lesser materials, in the form of electronic waste. The world’s production of e-waste is rising by 4% a year. It is driven by another outlandish norm: planned obsolescence. Our appliances are designed to break down, they are deliberately engineered not to be repaired. This is one of the reasons why the average smartphone, containing precious materials extracted at great environmental cost, lasts for between two and three years, while the average desktop printer prints for a total of five hours and four minutes before it is discarded.
The living world, and the people it supports, cannot sustain this level of consumption, but normal life depends on it. The compound, cascading effects of dysbiosis push us towards what some scientists warn could be global systemic collapse.

And, while ordinary citizens get it, our leaders don't:

 A YouGov survey suggests that eight out of 10 people want the government to prioritise health and wellbeing above economic growth during the pandemic, and six out of 10 would like it to stay that way when (or if) the virus abates. A survey by Ipsos produced a similar result: 58% of British people want a green economic recovery, while 31% disagree. As in all such polls, Britain sits close to the bottom of the range. By and large, the poorer the nation, the greater the weight its people give to environmental issues. In China, in the same survey, the proportions are 80% and 16%, and in India, 81% and 13%. The more we consume, the more our moral imagination atrophies.

And that is precisely the problem: Our leaders lack moral imagination.

Image: You Tube

4 comments:

Lorne said...

As usual, Monbiot is spot-on, Owen. It would be nice to think that a new order of priorities will develop after we emerge from our collective Covid-19 trauma, but our system and those we elect suggest a low probability of such an outcome.

Owen Gray said...

Monbiot's analyses are always incisive, Lorne. Unfortunately, those who are in the driver's seat lack his moral imagination.

The Disaffected Lib said...

I wrote a post on this theme yesterday, Owen. Unlike Monbiot, I don't see that we're going to be able to change course, certainly not in the remaining time available to us.

"The devilish part of this predicament, Cap, is not that we're consuming too much. It's that we are dependent on continuing to consume land and resources that our biosphere can no longer provide. We're mortally dependent on a Potemkin charade."

There is no way for humanity to return to a state of harmony with the finite natural limits of this planet that doesn't involve both an abrupt reduction in standard of living and depopulation. As climate change worsens, meeting those imperatives in any controlled way, will become much more difficult. The thing is if we don't get there on our own terms, we'll still get there in other, more devastating ways.

Many of us want a new order. We only balk at the idea of sacrifice and doing without.

Owen Gray said...

That's exactly the point, Mound. Establishing a new order will be costly. And we simply don't want to pay the price. But it's a case of pay me now or pay me later.